The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-06-14
.e two last mentioned points to-

that the defendant was charged on
TIE 9TH day of February last with
selling and disposing of spirituous
liquor on the 9th instant in Honolulu
without a license"
We consider this to be a sufficient
statement Of the charge and that 1t
aloses the jurisdiction of the Court,
ana supplies the omission in the nit
timus to state the jurisdiction.
The entry Of the Judgment or find
ing guilty Of selling liquor without
q license" must be read IN connection
with the charge made and must be
considered as a finding Of guilty on
that charge. But even # tins were
not so we do not think for reasons
hereafter appearing that this finding
could be attacked IN q collateral pro
ceeding such as "ia5oas corpus.
a With respect to the judgment not
awarding imprisonment We do not
deem 1t would be proper TO do so. The
statute creating the otfense says moth
ing as TO Imprisonment. and the ex
tent of Imprisonment, therefore, comes
under the general law regulating such
matters viz: Chapter 81 Of the Penal
Code. Section , Of which so far as Is
material reads as follows:
When a fine Is not paid immedi-
ately following the offenders conUc-
ton. he shall De committed TO prison.
there to remain at hard labor or other
wise IN the discretion of the Court or
maa strate until such fine Is paid,
Tt fine Is to be worked out al the
rate OF fifty cents per day, bur power
Is given TO two magistrates TO dis
Charge a poor convict at the explra-
Ton of one year of his imprisonment
1t appears to Us. therefore, that the
Imprisonment N such case Is not
properly a part Of the sentence. The
prisoner. by virtue Of the Judgment.
stands committed without further or
der. and 1t Is only necessary for the
MAGISTRATE TO exercise his discretion IN
making out the mittlmus as TO whether
the Imprisonment should be with or
without hard labor, which he appears
to have done IN this case.
1t appears to US that we may safely
adopt the words OF the Court IN Peo-
pie Is. Markham. I Cal. 90, and hold,
which we do, that the imprisonment
Is not a punishment. but 4 means OF
enforcing q payment of the hne.
Many authorities were cited by
counsel for the defendant TO the effect
shat where d justice of the peace hay
10 a power TO fine or imprlson Tor Z
limited time. adiudged the defendant
to pay a fine. and stand committed
until paid. the Judgment Is void. The
Imprisonment being indefinite was
beyond the jurisdiction Of the Jus
tee.
We are agreed that such contention
Is correct. and were this such I case
or. If the magistrate had imposed &
definite term of Imprisonment. we
Wuld unhesitatingly discharge the
prisoner. But here the magistrate Is
not so limited and none of the cases
cited are applicable 10 this case.
The case of People Is. Markham.
before mentioned. was cited by the
-defendant as IN his favor, but II ap-
pears TO US that. on the contrary, II Is
decidedly against him. although We
cannot say we are satisfied with the
reasons Tor the decision. as II seems
to imply that the defendant herein.
although the judgment should be llle-
gal. would have 10 wait eight hundred
days before he could apply for his
writ.
courts Of this country Is entirely
created 10y statute. and many OF the
reasons for the very strict CONSTRUCTION
of their jurisdiction. powers and pro
cedure which obtain II the United
States and England. the powers OF
such courts being il derogation OF
the Common Law. are not applicable
Nere
Section S93of the Civil Code directs
that the Police justices shall. II al
cases. preserve in written detail. the
minutes and proceedings other trials
transactions and judgments
And District justices are not com
PEELED 10 keep even such meagre
record. Section 919. providing that
they shall not be confined 70 forms.
nor shall be compelled IN any case C
preserve any other record Of their pro
eeedincs. than the mere conclusion
determination or judgment al when
they may arrive.
We must therefore hold that the
record and mitumus. for the purposes
OF this case. show sufficient !urisdlc-
to 10 hear and determine the charge
and to justify the detention o. the
r prisoner.
The question as 10 how lar q judy
ment can be attacked by proceedings
on Gd5oTs oe,pgs Is raised II this case
and the decision Of such question Is
necessary, IN order that persons who
msy consider themselves wrongfully
held IN custody msy understand the
nature Of the proceedings . be taken
to obtain redress.
BY the habeas corpus Act, persons
convicted OF II execution on process